United States v. Jara

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Jara

96 F. App'x 329

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 23, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5705

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 329 (United States v. Jara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jara, 96 F. App'x 329 (6th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Raul Jara appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence. The government has waived oral argument, and this court construes Jara’s failure to respond to its show cause letter concerning oral argument as a waiver of such argument. Further, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 2003, Jara pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced Jara to 135 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and the court imposed a $200 special assessment. In this timely appeal, Jara argues that the district court improperly denied him a reduction in his Sentencing Guidelines range for being a minor participant in the offense.

Upon review, we conclude that Jara’s argument is without merit. USSG § 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level reduction in a defendant’s Guidelines range if he was a minor participant in the criminal activity. A minor role means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role cannot be described as minimal. Section 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). In determining whether to award the defendant a reduction for a mitigating role in the offense, the court must consider the portion of a conspiracy that was attributable to the defendant for purposes of determining his base offense level. United States v. Salgado, 250 F.3d 438, 458 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Roberts, 223 F.3d 377, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating his mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Salgado, 250 F.3d at 458. Jara has not met his burden of showing that he was a minor participant in the criminal activity.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Raul Jara appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence. The government has waived oral argument, and this court construes Jara’s failure to respond to its show cause letter concerning oral argument as a waiver of such argument. Further, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 2003, Jara pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced Jara to 135 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and the court imposed a $200 special assessment. In this timely appeal, Jara argues that the district court improperly denied him a reduction in his Sentencing Guidelines range for being a minor participant in the offense.

Upon review, we conclude that Jara’s argument is without merit. USSG § 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level reduction in a defendant’s Guidelines range if he was a minor participant in the criminal activity. A minor role means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role cannot be described as minimal. Section 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). In determining whether to award the defendant a reduction for a mitigating role in the offense, the court must consider the portion of a conspiracy that was attributable to the defendant for purposes of determining his base offense level. United States v. Salgado, 250 F.3d 438, 458 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Roberts, 223 F.3d 377, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating his mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Salgado, 250 F.3d at 458. Jara has not met his burden of showing that he was a minor participant in the criminal activity.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jara-ca6-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack